Patterico's Pontifications

6/23/2015

Pope Francis: Weapons Manufacturers, Don’t Call Yourselves Christians

Filed under: General — Dana @ 9:34 am



[guest post by Dana]

During a meeting with young people on Sunday, Pope Francis condemned those who manufacture weapons as well as those who invest in the weapons industry:

“If you trust only men you have lost,” he told the young people in a long, rambling talk about war, trust and politics after putting aside his prepared address.

“It makes me think of … people, managers, businessmen who call themselves Christian and they manufacture weapons. That leads to a bit a distrust, doesn’t it?” he said to applause.

He also criticized those who invest in weapons industries, saying “duplicity is the currency of today … they say one thing and do another.”

A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms that the Papal Swiss Guard aren’t carrying slingshots to protect the Pontiff:

The Swiss Guard use traditional weapons, such as a sword and a halberd, as well as modern weapons such as the SIG P220 and Glock 19 pistols, the Steyr TMP machine pistol and submachine guns like the Heckler & Koch MP5A3.

Pope Francis also mentioned the Holocaust and wondered why weapons were not used to stop the trains that took prisoners to the camps and their eventual deaths:

“The great powers had the pictures of the railway lines that brought the trains to the concentration camps like Auschwitz to kill Jews, Christians, homosexuals, everybody. Why didn’t they bomb (the railway lines)?”

–Dana

207 Responses to “Pope Francis: Weapons Manufacturers, Don’t Call Yourselves Christians”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. Why didn’t they bomb the railway lines? They bombed the HELL out of the railway lines – the ones bringing German troops and materiel to the front. There was no excess bombing capacity to hit targets in Poland that had no military value.

    For every bomb wasted on the Pope’s railway, it would have meant more death at the front and slower progress to crush the Nazis, giving them even more time to kill people in the camps.

    So if the Allies followed this idiot’s advice, more people would have been exterminated, rather than less.

    Black Bellamy (a16cb4)

  3. God bless the Holy Father, but this is what happens when you select the pontiff from a largely basket-case Spanish colony in South America. You get a dollop of dippy give-peace-a-chance liberalism. It’s worth noting that this is the first modern Pope who has no deeply ingrained memory of the Second World War, seeing as how he was a young boy living in a country that didn’t join the war effort until the final 40 days.

    JVW (8278a3)

  4. Dippy give-peace-a-chance liberalism along with hostility to free markets, I might add.

    JVW (8278a3)

  5. We’ve lived long enough that the rhetorical question “Is the pope Catholic?” has become a literal question.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  6. This pope is a blithering old fool. He’s as destructive of Catholicism as Obama has been for the USA.

    ropelight (f1e5b5)

  7. Damn fools. If you destroy the main lines or the marshalling yards, you delay the “transports” along with everything else. The spurs are meaningless. The guards would have the prisoners get off and walk.

    Richard Aubrey (f6d8de)

  8. “Dippy” is what I thought when I read his comments.

    Dana (86e864)

  9. It’s worth noting that this is the first modern Pope who has no deeply ingrained memory of the Second World War, seeing as how he was a young boy living in a country that didn’t join the war effort until the final 40 days.

    And before anyone else makes this joke, yes, the Pope probably remembers the immediate aftermath of WW II when families with German names and nicely-shined jackboots started emigrating to his Argentina.

    JVW (8278a3)

  10. Perhaps had there been more weapons, say, in the hands of the Jews in the ghettos, the Holocaust might have been different.

    What ever happened to “peace through superior firepower”?

    Gramps, the original (a24321)

  11. british royalty has more insightful bibble-babble to offer than this bobblehead does

    Pathetic.

    happyfeet (831175)

  12. Told ya.

    The Pope’s a Dope.

    mojo (a3d457)

  13. Yes they would have started showing up around age 8 or 9, herr atlman,gregor et al, although maybe notin his home town

    narciso (bcc59c)

  14. Interesting to note that the pope is given a pass on such absurd and incorrect comments, yet whenever the religious right makes a gaffe or says something ridiculous, they are publicly shamed and castigated as being stupid fundies or hysterical religious people. Apparently, equal-opportunity shamers of religious leaders is not a thing.

    Dana (86e864)

  15. American bridge did the latter because they know how qiuckly the likes of rove wil flagelate themselves, likewise this serves their narrative.

    narciso (bcc59c)

  16. he was a young boy living in a country that didn’t join the war effort until the final 40 days.

    And a country that sided with Germany and was ruled by a German admiring fascist dictator for years afterward,

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  17. We’ve talked before about the Allies and the railroads, and I asked my Dad about it. He was a commanding officer and pilot in Africa, Italy, France, etc., during WWII flying reconnaissance and fighter planes.

    My Dad said the Army Air Corp regularly targeted the railroad engines in order to disrupt the transport of supplies and troops, but that never stopped people from being herded into the camps. The Nazis rounded up people and moved them to camps in many ways, including making them walk by the thousands. In addition, the Allies knew where the concentration camps were and where the POW camps were, but they weren’t able to do much about them.

    The Allies were flying night-time raids over Germany in 1942 and the American B-17s were flying missions as early as January 1943. One of the duties of the crew on a B-17 was to watch for movement of POWs or civilians, because the latter were often Jews being marched to camps. The information was forwarded to the resistance and covert units who would try to help them. Any supply train and troop sightings were sent to the military for its use in military planning.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  18. My uncle was shot down during WWII and was found and cared for by the resistance for several months, until he could return to his unit. The Allies had little ability to help its own people., let alone German captives.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  19. Wow, DRJ, what an incredible story that must be. Where was he shot down, over Germany? Can you imagine the courage it must have taken to be a part of the German resistance? My great uncle was killed in action when his plane was shot down during a bombing raid in Ploesti, Romania. My other great uncle, his brother, survived the war but never talked about it. He passed away about 10 years ago.

    JVW (8278a3)

  20. God bless your uncle, DRJ. And God bless you. I hope you are feeling well.

    Steve57 (48418e)

  21. the pope is given a pass on such absurd and incorrect comments

    Politics ueber alles.

    egd (1ad898)

  22. I’ve always held a high regard for the Pope. Of course in my life time the Pope was a church figure. Now it seems this guy thinks he’s an expert on environment, international politics and the nature of armament and weapons. He’s none of those and he really, really needs to shut up. Right now he’s doing nothing but giving support to the very people who would exterminate him, his followers and his church.

    Shame on you Pope. Stop talking like a 12 year old Brentwood snowflake.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  23. 22. I’ve always held a high regard for the Pope. Of course in my life time the Pope was a church figure. Now it seems this guy thinks he’s an expert on environment, international politics and the nature of armament and weapons. He’s none of those and he really, really needs to shut up. Right now he’s doing nothing but giving support to the very people who would exterminate him, his followers and his church.

    Shame on you Pope. Stop talking like a 12 year old Brentwood snowflake.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 6/23/2015 @ 12:02 pm

    I’ve got to try to be fair to the Pope.

    As far as his encyclical goes his overall concern is for the poor, and for our stewardship of the environment.

    Which is exactly what a man of the cloth should be concerned about. So far, so good.

    But all the pseudoscience and bad Marxist economics fatally flaws the message.

    As for his pronouncements about how no good Christian can be an arms maker, stop me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he beg the “world community” to intervene militarily to rescue the Christians of the M.E.?

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/pope-francis-reaffirms-isis-stopped-article-1.1963754

    Pope Francis summoned Vatican ambassadors from across the region for three days of meetings. At the conclusion Saturday, they reaffirmed that military force was justified to stop the Islamic State group and that Muslim and Christian religious leaders must denounce the “instrumentalization of religion to justify violence.”

    Why yes. Yes he did.

    If I can keep my head from exploding, he called on the anti-Christ, i.e. arms makers, to come to the aid of Christians. And then he called on the anti-Christ, i.e. Muslim leaders who don’t mind in the slightest using Islam to justify the slaughter and/or subjugation of non-Muslims, to unite with Christian leaders to denounce the “instrumentalization of religion to justify violence.”

    I may just not be able to keep my skull together at this point.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  24. Pope Francis says that weapons manufacturers shouldn’t call themselves Christians. Well, he might be surprised to find that a great many Catholics don’t consider him a pope.

    ropelight (f1e5b5)

  25. The nuns never beat this guy enough in parochial school.

    mg (31009b)

  26. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/ned-may/the-vatican-falls-for-the-interfaith-scam/

    …During his visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority the previous month, Pope Francis had invited Israeli President Shimon Peres and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to attend the event. Both leaders accepted the invitation, and sat with the Pope while prayers were said and chanted in the Vatican garden.

    The imam, however, went beyond the script that had been handed to the Vatican in advance. He included in his chanted prayer verses 284-286 of Sura 2 in the Koran, the last part of which calls for Allah to grant the Muslims victory over the infidels. His words were broadcast live to a television audience, but they were in Arabic, so most non-Muslim viewers had no idea what he had said.

    This apparently included the Vatican hierarchy. When someone who did understand Arabic pointed out what had happened, a Vatican spokesman at first denied that any such thing had occurred. Those verses weren’t in the advance script — how could he possibly have said them? No Muslim, especially a respected imam, would ever go back on his word!

    Later, when that story became untenable, the Vatican soft-pedaled the added text, saying that there was nothing really wrong with it. To further complicate matters, a doctored tape of the Arabic prayer was released in which the final part of verse 2:286 was edited out. It’s not clear who did the editing, but the altered version certainly did serve the interests of the Vatican…

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  27. JVW (8278a3) — 6/23/2015 @ 9:40 am

    True, but I pause to second guess the Holy Spirit’s choice.

    As I see it:

    Jesus called a hypocrite, Francis called a hypocrite. Check.
    Jesus a divisive figure, Francis a divisive figure. Check
    Jesus a sign of contradiction, Francis…well you get the idea.

    All in all, if I expect my religion to conform to my thinking rather than the other way around, I’m doing it wrong. The same goes for my leaders. Jesus hardly conformed to anyone’s idea of a leader. In this age where we think that we get to pick what we want, from toilet paper to our leaders, I am not surprised in the least with what I am witnessing.

    There was a time when no one outside of the Catholic Church gave a second thought to what the pontiff had to say, much less think that the pontiff had any sway on their life. Yes, yes, the world is smaller now, technology, the web, blah, blah, blah.

    What I am trying to convey is my surprise at how intimately angry people are with the Pope – as though he were elected by them. That he was supposed to represent them, or their ideas. Let me remind my fellow Catholics that the Pope represents Christ. He was elected by the Holy Spirit through the votes of the college of Cardinals.

    For the non-Catholics We Catholics don’t get our marching orders from the Pope, we get them from the same guy that Peter got his marching orders from. Peter just made sure those marching orders were followed, unchanged. Each successive Pope has the same challenge. The Pope is a human with all the same defects that humans are prone to have, and this doesn’t change when he gets elected Pope. This is not hard to understand.

    Francis cannot change Jesus’ marching orders anymore than Peter could. All Francis can do is try to clarify how those orders can be faithfully fulfilled in our time. Or cause them to be perfectly obscure! Thanks be to God that gates of the Church are secured by God and not by the Pope! If the Church can survive Communism, She can weather Hurricane Francis.

    If anything, I see this as an opportunity to experience what the climate (no pun intended) was like when Jesus walked amongst us. How would I have interpreted what the scribes, pharisees, Sadducee, centurions, governors, etc. all where saying? Very few of the elite were “on the side” of the “LIV” of the day.

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  28. “Why didn’t they bomb the railway lines? They bombed the HELL out of the railway lines – the ones bringing German troops and materiel to the front. There was no excess bombing capacity to hit targets in Poland that had no military value.”

    Not exactly.

    Bombing of railway lines did some good, when it was immediately before a batter in which large amounts of supplies would have to be moved. Otherwise, after war analysis seem to indicate that, like targeting industry, it’s effect is hard to quantify and doesn’t seem to be worth the losses. Bombing of the railways to the camps seems to have happened, some, but they were non-essential lines, and by the time the allies had control of the air, most of the victims were already at their destinations.

    Jewish leaders asked that the camps not be bombed, because they feared that the SS would use such bombing as an excuse to blame all the deaths on the allies, and because this was non-precision bombing and might have actually cased more deaths than it saved lives.

    Multiple examinations have concluded that, once Hitler and his clique had started The Final Solution, the best way to rescue Jews was to prosecute the war as vigorously as possible.

    See; THE MYTH OF RESCUE;

    http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rescue-Democracies-Could-Saved/dp/0415212499/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1435090245&sr=1-1&keywords=THE+MYTH+OF+RESCUE

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  29. capitalism helps poor people

    socialist popetards don’t

    it’s really that simple

    happyfeet (831175)

  30. 27. …All in all, if I expect my religion to conform to my thinking rather than the other way around, I’m doing it wrong…

    True, felipe. I have to at least examine myself and my motives and ask, “Does the Pope have a point?”

    …What I am trying to convey is my surprise at how intimately angry people are with the Pope – as though he were elected by them. That he was supposed to represent them, or their ideas. Let me remind my fellow Catholics that the Pope represents Christ. He was elected by the Holy Spirit through the votes of the college of Cardinals…

    I would say more dismayed than angry. For some reason the Pope’s advisers who helped write (by committee apparently) LAUDATO SI chose an athiest who believes in Gaia, not God, to head his Global warming commission. A man who believes in population control. While locking out Catholic scientists who dissented from the fictional scientific consensus entirely.

    …For the non-Catholics We Catholics don’t get our marching orders from the Pope, we get them from the same guy that Peter got his marching orders from…

    felipe the papist! (56556d) — 6/23/2015 @ 12:48 pm

    Certainly.

    https://twitter.com/fatherjonathan

    Fr. Jonathan Morris ‏@fatherjonathan Jun 20

    Pope Francis has taught me so much, including the confidence to say publicly when I disagree with him on issues other than faith and moral

    Actually it wasn’t Pope Francis who taught me that. But you get my drift. And Fr. Jonathan’s.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  31. ==Thanks be to God that gates of the Church are secured by God and not by the Pope! If the Church can survive Communism, She can weather Hurricane Francis.==

    I fear that you may not be adequately factoring in “the narrative” and the rapid means of deploying and magnifying “the narrative” outside the gates of the Church since the anti-communist days that you recall.

    elissa (9fb63c)

  32. Reason rail road tracks were not bombed leading into auschwitz was that too many high up in the military were anti-Semitic as well as being anti negro. If you disagree why were no african-americans awarded the congressional medal of honor until many years after world war II when many of the racists had left the military. Doris Miller was the first at pearl harbor not given the medal of honor to curry favor with southern racists.

    semite (6e6527)

  33. A fellow named schellnhuber is one of the reasons for concern.

    narciso (bcc59c)

  34. The thing is, a lot of Christians are against weapons, as are a lot of them against Profit. It’s a whole raft of reasons that I’m an agnostic instead of a Christian.

    OTOH, no combination of Christian churches or sects managed ever to murder one hundred million people in a single century, so I’m DAMNED if I’m going to be an Atheist.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd)

  35. 28. …Bombing of railway lines did some good, when it was immediately before a batter in which large amounts of supplies would have to be moved. Otherwise, after war analysis seem to indicate that, like targeting industry, it’s effect is hard to quantify and doesn’t seem to be worth the losses…

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd) — 6/23/2015 @ 1:11 pm

    Among other considerations you have to consider the capabilities and limitations of the command and control and weapons systems at the time. Perhaps the Pope should talk to some of us non-Christian arms makers and users.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/holocaust2.htm

    Auschwitz and Birkenau:
    Why the World War II Photo Interpreters
    Failed to Identify the Extermination Complex

    Dino Brugioni
    Military Intelligence
    vol. 9, no. 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1983): pages 50-55.

    During World War II, photographic interpretation was a much used and essential tool of the Allied military intelligence effort. Literally millions of aerial photographs were taken of enemy areas, including heavy coverage of Germany and German-occupied lands. The many thousands of photo interpretation reports based on those photographs have been preserved in the archives, along with the prints and negatives.

    I was a member of a bomber crew during World War II, but I have devoted practically all the rest of my professional career to the field of photographic interpretation. In the course of my work…

    …3. Training.

    Interpreter trainees were normally sent to a four-to-six-week course which explained the identification of military equipmentSairplanes, tanks, artillery, ships, and the like. Senior photo interpreters, organized in sections, worked on more specific subjects such as strike photography, bomb damage assessments, rail and road transportation, ports and shipping, military installations, inland waterway transportation, aircraft plants and airfield, radar and electronics, underground installations, V-1 and V-2 installations, enemy defenses, armor and artillery and petroleum refineries. No photo interpreters were assigned to do detailed interpretation on concentration or extermination camps. As nearly as I can determine, no tasking was ever imposed to conduct aerial reconnaissance of such camps. Photography that was acquired of these camps was a by-product of the reconnaissance of nearby strategic installations.

    …5. Photo Interpretation Equipment.

    By modern standards, the photo interpretation equipment used in World War II can only be classified as primitive. Photo interpreters used stereoscopes with lenses capable of magnification four times the original imagery (about like that of a magnifying glass). In addition, tube magnifiers with a seven-time magnification capability were also used in scanning the aerial photos. Photo interpreters performed the interpretation from contact paper prints rather than film duplicates. We know today that the negatives from which some of the Auschwitz contract prints were made in World War II could have been enlarged up to 35 times.

    Concomitant with the tragic failure of photo interpreters to identify the Auschwitz- Birkenau Extermination Complex was the equally tragic failure of major Allied air commands to be aware that aerial photography of the complex existed. There had been numerous appeals from many sources to bomb the complex, the railyards, the rail bridges and rail lines leading to Auschwitz. Those appeals reached the highest levels, including Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin D. Roosevelt. When the bombing specialists were ordered to formulate plans for bombing the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex, officials of the Air Ministry, the Royal Air Force Bomber Command and the U.S. 8th Air Force bemoaned the lack of aerial photographic coverage of the complex. In fact, such photos were readily available at the Allied Central Interpretation Unit at Royal Air Force Station Medmenham, 50 miles outside of London and at the Mediterranean Allied Photo Reconnaissance Wing in Italy. The ultimate irony was that no search for the aerial photos was ever instituted by either organization. In retrospect, it is a fact that by the time the Soviet Army reached Auschwitz on January 27, 1945, the Allies had photographed the Auschwitz-Birkenau Extermination Complex at least 30 times.

    Sorry, il Papa, it just wasn’t that easy in the pre-computer age.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  36. felipe, I certainly wouldn’t argue with the theological points that you made, which I think are certainly sound. My issue with Pope Francis is this: his immediate two predecessors were serious intellectuals who advanced complex arguments. Just reading a John Paul encyclical is ample proof that his thoughts were fully formed, perfectly coherent, and amazingly rich and layered so as to defy simple categorization. Benedict, though his pontificate was much shorter in duration, was equally rigorous. Francis, unfortunately, seems to think that he can boil down complex theological arguments into pithy soundbites (“Who am I to judge?” Christian arms manufactures “lead to distrust,” etc.). He’s sadly the perfect 21st Century Pope for the Twitter age — theology in 140 characters or less. I realize that the shepherd has to be able to speak to the flock in a way that is understandable and relatable to them, but I think Francis needs to try a whole lot harder to separate catholic theology from banal platitudes if he wants to have anything approaching the credibility of his predecessors.

    JVW (8278a3)

  37. Yes, I agree, JVW. The man has his failings, for sure.

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  38. It’s just so easy to say from 70 or so years on that they should have known what to look for, and known what to do about it.

    Taking out a rail line was easier said than done. We had to carpet bomb whole cities just to damage a factory.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  39. elissa (9fb63c) — 6/23/2015 @ 1:17 pm

    You are completely correct, elissa. In fact, I do not factor in anything but God.

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  40. Apparently this Pope is not too big on Luke 22:36 and its surrounding passages.

    In the extremely unlikely event that I am ever invited to give a sermon, one of the ones I have planned is some kind of Nerf-style mock-attack; whereupon when the exercise is complete I will go about and determine if at least two of every twelve people there are properly armed as Jesus intended.

    luagha (e5bf64)

  41. R.E. “semite” @32; whose trademark is maximum incoherence? Perry or IMDW?

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  42. Trusting press reports of anything the Pope says is unwise.

    Pious Agnostic (4e1a81)

  43. You’ll have to excuse me filipe, but I’m not a papist, I’m a Lutheran so what the Pope means when he talks I take at face value. You are saying he only says what Jesus Christ wants said? So from what I’m hearing Christ is for populists, left wing socialists, earth worshiping heathens who won’t defend themselves against anti Christian moslems, communists or other enemies. So basically Christ would be considered anti American in our traditional rugged individualistic way. Siding with those who believe AGW is their religion and who want to FORCE the rest of us to support it with our money. Siding against those who make the weapons to vanquish the murderers of the Middle East and those who would enslave in the name of another anti Christian sect, communists. Very well, carry on.

    I’ve never been happier to be Lutheran.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  44. I will now voice my disappointment in the headline of this post: wasn’t it decried, not long ago in another post how deceptive headlines and choice of words were a disservice to the reader? And here we are!

    The Pope said no such thing! This much is true from his words. Did Jesus mean the same thing when he scolded Peter with the words “Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword?”

    Oh, and wasn’t Jesus a hypocrite for saying that when his own disciple(s) carried arms? Or was Jesus all “Dude! Where did you get that?” The key is provided in these words: “If you trust only men you have lost,”

    Peter demonstrated that he only trusted “in men” when he drew the sword, thus drawing a rebuke from Jesus.

    This is Francis’ fine meaning, as I understand it. Not only is it obvious that you can call yourself a christian and manufacture, invest in arms, but you can call yourself a disciple of Christ while carrying arms – as Peter did.

    All this stuff is spritually based, people. This is the Pope talking, what do you expect?

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  45. Jesus was prolly wishing that Peter would just lose the sword and trust in him alone, kinda like what Francis is saying.

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  46. Greetings:

    So, Liberation Theology 2.0 doesn’t include “Let he who is with sin cast the first stone.” ???

    11B40 (0f96be)

  47. 34. The thing is, a lot of Christians are against weapons, as are a lot of them against Profit. It’s a whole raft of reasons that I’m an agnostic instead of a Christian.

    OTOH, no combination of Christian churches or sects managed ever to murder one hundred million people in a single century, so I’m DAMNED if I’m going to be an Atheist.

    C. S. P. Schofield (a196fd) — 6/23/2015 @ 1:25 pm

    I’m not trying to convert you but a lot of Christians can be wrong. What matters is, what does the religion teach?

    As far as arms go:

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

    PART THREE
    LIFE IN CHRIST

    SECTION TWO
    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS

    CHAPTER TWO
    “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”

    ARTICLE 5
    THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

    You shall not kill.54

    You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55

    2258 “Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.“56

    …Legitimate defense

    2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”65

    2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

    2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

    As for profit:

    1 Timothy 5:18

    For the Scripture says, “YOU SHALL NOT MUZZLE THE OX WHILE HE IS THRESHING,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

    There is nothing wrong with honest profit.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  48. 42. Trusting press reports of anything the Pope says is unwise.

    Pious Agnostic (4e1a81) — 6/23/2015 @ 1:39 pm

    Word.

    He says something in Spanish, which is reported in Italian, and gets passed to us third hand in English. And every step of the way the message is massaged.

    Still, when you drill down, Pope Francis does say some disappointing stuff.

    It’s just not as bad as we’ve been manipulated to believe.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  49. ” So from what I’m hearing Christ is for populists, left wing socialists, earth worshiping heathens who won’t defend themselves against anti Christian moslems, communists or other enemies. So basically Christ would be considered anti American in our traditional rugged individualistic way.”

    Leftist have already claimed that, sir. They are of course wrong. Just as you are wrong. But think of what you are really saying. It is no different than Jonah’s complaints about God. God loves all humans. Why on earth would He want to see one side kill the other? Yes, God would rather we turn the other cheek than fight. Jesus taught this to us by his own example: dying on a cross. It is not hard to understand, but it is hard as hell to do! Do not be a stiff-necked man, my brother.

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  50. R.E. “semite” @32; whose trademark is maximum incoherence? Perry or IMDW?

    Perry

    JD (2fc8db)

  51. It’s just not as bad as we’ve been manipulated to believe.
    Steve57 (ec1eac) — 6/23/2015 @ 1:56 pm

    True, dat.

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  52. I’m getting off of my Papal horse, now. Let there be peace!

    felipe the papist! (56556d)

  53. There, that’s better.

    Just felipe (56556d)

  54. felipe @44, you’re a good man.

    I remain dismayed by LAUDATO SI, and am still convinced the Pope could have expressed his concern for the poor and our stewardship of the environment by leaving the pseudoscience and Marxist economics out of the document.

    But I appreciate the reminder that initial reports are not to be believed.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  55. This all wouldn’t bother me if the words of the Pope weren’t being selectively used as a political tool.

    JD (2fc8db)

  56. We are both dismayed, sir! What else can be said? I’m not going to deny my own disappointment. But we are free to disagree with Francis, and I know we do.

    The funny thing is atheists would have loved to point out all the disagreements the disciples had, amongst themselves (which of them was the greatest?), even while walking with Jesus. But the fact that Jesus let them hash things out for awhile, before bringing them back to focus, should serve to remind us today that disagreements among ourselves is not a make-or-break affair. Sinners are gonna sin. I’m talking about myself, of course.

    felipe (56556d)

  57. JD (2fc8db) — 6/23/2015 @ 2:18 pm

    Exactly, JD.

    felipe (56556d)

  58. Do not be a stiff-necked man, my brother.

    I’m trying not to be stiff-necked. But it is hard when I keep hearing very unchristian things being attributed to the leader of a Christian church. When one goes off with this “all we are saying is give peace a chance” sh!t in the face of the barbarism that is islam and the oppression that is communism you lose me. I do not believe Christ wants us not to be able to defend ourselves any more than He wants us not to protect the weak. We can’t do that with empty hands.

    Time will tell where the Pope and the Church are headed. I hope it’s the right direction.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  59. Yeah, I’ll start listening to the Pope when he explains why Pope Pius XII turned a blind eye, or worse, to the Nazis as they enslaved and murdered all those Jews and homosexuals and Gypsies and Slavs.

    Literally, I want to know who died and made this guy God?

    Self-righteous, self-proclaimed moral and intellectual superiors tell us how WE must live while they do anything they damn-well please.

    WarEagle82 (d35bad)

  60. Does the Pope think a Christian can own a weapons factory or not??

    If he thinks one can, the comment could use some clarification.
    If he thinks they can’t, then I think his security should no longer use anything more sophisticated than a sling and stone.

    MD in Philly (522abd)

  61. “When one goes off with this “all we are saying is give peace a chance” sh!t in the face of the barbarism that is islam and the oppression that is communism you lose me.”

    LOL! I know I shouldn’t laugh, because it is a very serious concern for the world. You are right. Steve made clear in an earlier comment that the Church teaches:

    2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility

    But as one Communist asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?” We need and are allowed to defend ourselves. I would say that POTUS is in serious violation of his grave duty.

    felipe (56556d)

  62. WarEagle82 (d35bad) — 6/23/2015 @ 2:48 pm

    ” Pope Pius XII turned a blind eye”

    You have been lied to, sir. But let’s not get into a battle of the links. You will believe want you want to believe – as will I.

    felipe (56556d)

  63. MD in Philly (522abd) — 6/23/2015 @ 2:50 pm

    Of course, the Pope knows one can own a weapons factory,which in and of itself not kill anyone – completely unlike, say an abortion mill. I can see the need for him to just say so, but it will be spun into something else.

    felipe (56556d)

  64. 61. …Steve made clear in an earlier comment that the Church teaches…

    felipe (56556d) — 6/23/2015 @ 2:53 pm

    I try to be of of as much use as I can.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  65. O/T, by the way, Prom Queen’s betrayal continues.

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/06/22/us-forces-share-a-base-with-extremist-iran-backed-shiite-militia-in-iraq/

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-22/iran-s-forces-and-u-s-share-a-base-in-iraq

    Obama is making US forces share Taqqadum with the Iranian Shiite version of ISIS. These militias have American soldiers’ blood on their hands. Their overlords in Tehran have American soldiers’ blood on their hands. Their Iranian overlords are adding to that American blood on their hands as this administration has made it clear they don’t need to modify their behavior for the Obama tongue bath to continue.

    Funny how worrying about the confederate flag and parsing the words of the Pope is way down on my list today.

    This should be treason.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  66. (The other sermon that I’ll never get to give is one where I set up a t-shirt and concession stand right up next to the altar and try to sell gimcrackery, including foreign currency. I then escalate to trying to make low-interest loans. My goal would be to get someone in the audience to upend my table and chase me out of the church, in which case they would find an envelope on the lectern about Jesus and the moneylenders in the temple and be invited to read it aloud.)

    luagha (e5bf64)

  67. “gimcrackery”

    I haven’t “heard” that word used in a long time. Thanks!

    That would be one of the all-time great sermons!

    felipe (56556d)

  68. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/06/tom-cotton-on-the-obama-iran-axis.php

    Our friend Senator Tom Cotton has released a statement commenting on the Bloomberg story reported yesterday by Josh Rogin and Eli Lake here that we are now sharing a military base with Iranian forces in Iraq:

    …It’s deeply troubling that the President now finds it acceptable to share a military base with this enemy, even while we are attempting to negotiate a deal to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    This report is a stark and nearly absurd demonstration of the Obama administration’s tacit accommodation of Iran’s strategic aim of extending its influence in Iraq…

    I hate the polite language. It isn’t “nearly absurd.” It’s traitorous. McCain used similar language, something along the lines that families who lost loved ones in Anbar find this arrangement (if I remember correctly) “Hard to understand.”

    No, it’s easy to understand. If anyone has ever given you the middle finger before. You understand it.

    It’s an insult.

    /Hijack off.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  69. HEH, if the Pope did your sermon, the next day the headlines would include:

    Beloved Francis persecuted in own church for promoting “green” T-shirts

    or

    Conservative “Faithful” throw pontiff out of his own church.

    felipe (56556d)

  70. A lot of Christians don’t think the Bishop of Rome is a Christian when he claims to be Pontifex Maximus, a title originally held by the Caesars, and the avatar of St. Peter, and to have supreme spiritual authority above all the other bishops. So, it’s okay. He can also tell us all the other things Christians don’t do like not eat fish on Friday, or not believe that the Virgin hung around Earth until 1956 before she ascended bodily to Heaven, or not send him money.

    nk (dbc370)

  71. Rubio casts deciding vote.
    Any Democrat/ 2016

    mg (31009b)

  72. nk (dbc370) — 6/23/2015 @ 3:26 pm

    That’s quite true, nk. The reasons for that are as varied as there are respondents.

    felipe (56556d)

  73. JVW,

    My uncle escorted bombers in raids in Operation Tidal Wave on the Romanian oil fields of Ploiesti. My understanding is that operation was the most costly single mission in WWII for the Army Air Corp. God bless your great uncle and your family for his sacrifice.

    My uncle was shot down about a month later as he attacked a train locomotive in Yugoslavia. The locomotive exploded and the debris caused him to crash. For several months, he was cared for and protected by Serbs loyal to General Draža Mihailović. They ultimately helped him return to Allied territory.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  74. At what point will the Pope denounce Pelosi and other self-proclaimed Catholics that support abortion?

    tops116 (d094f8)

  75. The Pope doesn’t bother me because I consider him a human and, at most, a Catholic philosopher. But I would be troubled if I believed in Papal infallibility, i.e., that the Pope and the Bishops, when united, can “proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly.” I have trouble with that, especially on this topic.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  76. The world’s on fire, but not the way the Pope thinks.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  77. “All within the Church, nothing outside the Church, nothing against the Church.” I want to say that Peron taught him well, but this attitude is as old as the Church and was found among some Old Calendar Greek Orthodox and Calvinists as well. The Puritans glaringly. Long before Mussolini appropriated it.

    nk (dbc370)

  78. and simply astonishing incompetence, passivity, and flaccidity from the Obama Administration on the OPM hack. It’s as if we’re being governed by clueless children. #ResignNow

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  79. The Holy Father’s musings on global warming don’t rise to the level of doctrinal infallibility because this isn’t a matter of Church doctrine having been called into question. A papal encyclical simply calls on the faithful to lead a more Christ-centered life. Saying that the Holy See believes that everyone should treat global warming as a pending catastrophe and take drastic steps via world government to mitigate its effects has the same level of compulsion as saying that Catholics in communion with the Church should abstain from using man-made contraception.

    JVW (8278a3)

  80. Welcome to the cafeteria folks. Pull up a chair. It’s pretty comfy place, having a pope you don’t really agree with.

    stir (0f3b82)

  81. at Luby’s i always get the fish and the pudding

    happyfeet (831175)

  82. JVW,

    I’m not Catholic so I apologize if I’ve misunderstood something, but in Pope Francis’ Encyclical he repeatedly refers to evil acts in describing fossil fuels, failing to protect the earth from climate change, and other environmental actions. My understanding is Church doctrine is set forth in the Catechism that addresses good and evil acts. If the Pope isn’t defining environmental actions as good and evil (and thus part of doctrine), he comes mighty close.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  83. JVW is correct. I apologize for not spelling that out in one of my earlier comments even though I did allude to it when reminding Steve57 that we are “free” to disagree with the Pope. Unless you are a Catholic, you are in no way bound in any manner concerning Solemn Papal declarations made Ex Cathedra. There have been relatively few such pronouncements, all dealing with deeply Spiritual matters, such as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Usually such pronouncements are made to formalize an already widely held belief among the Catholic laity. In Catholic church history, the solemn proclamation on matters of faith and morals has been accompanied by great relief and joy.

    A current example of a widely held belief among Catholics that has yet to be defined and solemnified by the Church is of a certain status Mary has in the economy of salvation. Millions of Catholics, laity and theologians alike, have been daily petitioning the Pope for centuries. So the you can see how these pronouncements are hard to come by. The way some critics of the Catholic church complain, you’d think there was, yet, a new one coming out to burden the faithful. Of course, I exagerate.

    felipe (56556d)

  84. I usually avoid wiki-anything, but since this doctrine is not yet defined, it doesn’t hurt to get a general idea. Which, really, is all the faithful have at the moment. I know a theologian who would kill me for saying that!

    felipe (56556d)

  85. JVW,

    Are you saying contraception isn’t addressed by the Catechism? (It seems like it is to me.) Or are you saying the Catechism isn’t a statement of Catholic doctrine?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  86. Sorry, this should have been the link for the Catechism that includes statements on contraception.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  87. There will never be a “Doctrine of global warming.” Anyone using Laudato Si to imply this is -ahem- economizing on the truth.

    felipe (56556d)

  88. 80. Welcome to the cafeteria folks. Pull up a chair. It’s pretty comfy place, having a pope you don’t really agree with.

    stir (0f3b82) — 6/23/2015 @ 4:27 pm

    Two can play this game, s***head. You are no Catholic, as most are not who bring up the “cafeteria” word.

    Fine, if you think grave mortal sins can be interchanged with mere suggestions of Catholic social justice teachings at the the great Catholic Cafeteria.

    I will let you wage war on coal, in addition to letting you have carbon tax credits.

    In exchange there will be no gay marriage and no abortion.

    Deal?

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  89. happyfeet @81, fish pudding!

    What kind of fish? How much sugar?

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  90. felipe,

    I accept that. I’m not Catholic and don’t understand how Church doctrine works.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  91. Whatever you do, DRJ, don’t listen to me. I have a temper.

    I’m working on it, though.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  92. Except from the book Knife of logic by NK

    Steve57 Steps in close, grabs on to stir with his free hand, and … well, you know ….

    felipe (56556d)

  93. Pacifists are what created Mohammad. Not any skill at martial arts. It’s easy to kill the unarmed.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  94. All this cathaholic talk reminds me of when I was a altar boy and used to tape the clapper of the little sanctus bell so it wouldn’t ring during Mass. Also used to climb in the steeple and block the big bell so it wouldn’t ring. Not hearing the bells meant the people not making it to Mass were unaware that something supernatural was about to happen. Bless me father.

    mg (31009b)

  95. Was John Lennon prescient? Does this Pope smoke dope?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  96. feets likes the fishsticks more than teh pudding.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  97. Have I got this right?
    It is Christian to use weapons of war to defend the innocent.
    But it is un-Christian to manufacture those weapons.

    This reminds me of the hypocrites who despised certain professions all the while availing themselves of their services.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  98. Pope Francis’ Peronist roots:

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  99. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms that the Papal Swiss Guard aren’t carrying slingshots to protect the Pontiff:

    Thereby making the Pope a typical, garden-variety “limousine liberal.”

    What a joke.

    But hardly surprising. Francis comes from the land of loony leftism, Argentina.

    Mark (a11af2)

  100. Elizabeth Scalia, who is a practicing Catholic and quite a smart woman, has written about the encyclical, particularly comments regarding the earth, and states that “Pope Francis gets to the heart of the matter in the second paragraph, but most miss it on their way to the cherry-picking”:

    The violence present in our
    hearts, wounded by sin, is also reflected in the
    symptoms of sickness evident in the soil, in the
    water, in the air and in all forms of life. This is
    why the earth herself, burdened and laid waste,
    is among the most abandoned and maltreated of
    our poor; she “groans in travail” (Rom 8:22). We
    have forgotten that we ourselves are dust of the
    earth (cf. Gen 2:7); our very bodies are made up of her elements, we breathe her air and we receive
    life and refreshment from her waters.

    This is the largest and most important point of this long, often beautiful document: humanity’s conflict with itself is the source of ecological disorder.


    The balance of the essay and her view is rather interesting. I would like hearing what the Catholics here think of it.

    Dana (86e864)

  101. #97

    Think of it like an Islamists preference for buggery… it is holy to give, but not to receive… whether the “ahem” gift is given under extreme duress or not doesn’t seem to matter.

    And on to the Pope, most American Christians tend to think the Pope is not speaking for God.
    Which I think is good, regardless to whether I agree with what the Pope is saying.
    His word is no more infallible that Billy Graham’s

    steveg (fed1c9)

  102. I accept that. I’m not Catholic and don’t understand how Church doctrine works.

    Believe me, DRJ, a lot of us Catholics (and I include myself here) aren’t exactly sure either. But “papal infallibility” is one of those heavily mis-understood topics — partly because the Holy See isn’t too good at explaining it — which makes it seem that it is invoked far more often than it historically has been. It’s really just limited to major articles of the Church’s faith that are controversial among other Christians: is the consecrated host the living Body of Christ, did the Mother of the Savior ascend directly into Heaven without first experiencing a human death, was Mary conceived in her mother’s womb free from sin, and other matters of theological importance. It isn’t really invoked for the rather humdrum parts of the catechism.

    JVW (8278a3)

  103. I guess it could be worse. They could have chosen Jerry Brown as Pope.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  104. Can you support abortion and same-sex marriage and call yourself a Catholic?

    I hear that John Sununu advised the College of Cardinals on this guy.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  105. #103
    Right now that looks like a distinction without a difference

    steveg (fed1c9)

  106. Dana (86e864) — 6/23/2015 @ 7:02 pm

    Yes, the opening paragraphs are meant to make clear the context of the document, and as Elizabeth puts it, people completely miss it on their way to cherry picking.

    The source of my dismay is what JD said, that the document is being used for political purposes when the left spins the message Hoagie aptly described it thus: “But it is hard when I keep hearing very unchristian things being attributed to the leader of a Christian church.”

    If the MFM isn’t outright falsifying what the Pope says, they are twisting it to fit their agenda. We all know what the left means by the phrase “reproductive rights.” We know what their agenda is when they speak of “climate change.” It unfortunate when we hear the phrase “climate change” coming from the Pope. But maybe, just maybe we should cut him some slack, just the way we did with the Republicans that voted for the resolution that stated “climate change was real.” Remember that? Some commenters here rightly thought that it was clever way to diffuse an otherwise divisive maneuver.

    I’m not saying Francis is playing at politics. I’m saying that this whole affair is not as bad as it looks. I will further qualify my own personal dismay, not with the Pope’s choice of words, but the left co-opting the meaning of those words and then making their definition live “rent free” in our heads.

    felipe (56556d)

  107. Kevin M (25bbee) — 6/23/2015 @ 7:57 pm

    I’m surprised that you even ask the question: yes, you can! A white chick can call herself black! A man can call hisself a woman. Try to keep up, please.

    felipe (56556d)

  108. This is the largest and most important point of this long, often beautiful document: humanity’s conflict with itself is the source of ecological disorder.

    It’s interesting that quite a few self-fancying environmentalists are strangely tolerant of or permissive about the trashed-up, squalid condition of a vast array of slums in the US or Third-World hovels throughout the planet. I wouldn’t be so irked by that form of two-faced hand-wringing if such people picked themselves up and moved to those slums or hovels instead of living the high life (with all its materialistic-polluting amenities) of an Al Gore.

    Mark (a11af2)

  109. Doggone it! Let me edit that graph.

    The source of my dismay is what JD said, that the document is being used for political purposes when the left spins the message[.] Hoagie aptly described it thus: “But it is hard when I keep hearing very unchristian things being attributed to the leader of a Christian church.”

    Now I know why I was made to ride the short bus.

    felipe (56556d)

  110. The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which is housed in the Vatican, offered a seminar on Climate Change starting on April 28, 2015. The Academy’s members are some of the best scientists in the world, and one of their jobs is to advise the Pope and the Church regarding science. As Pope John Paul II explained:

    A pope, more than anyone else, knows the exact reason for the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. In 1992 John Paul II told the members that “the purpose of your academy is precisely to discern and to make known, in the present state of science and within its proper limits, what can be regarded as an acquired truth or at least as enjoying such a degree of probability that it would be imprudent and unreasonable to reject it.” In the pope’s eyes, the academy is an instrument that teases scientific fact from fiction.

    The confluence of the Academy’s seminar on climate change in late April 2015, followed by the Pope’s Encyclical on the same subject released May 24, 2015, suggests to me that Pope Francis knows what climate change is and uses the term scientifically and on purpose.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  111. Dana #100,

    I’m sure Elizabeth understands what she wrote. I don’t.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  112. == I will further qualify my own personal dismay, not with the Pope’s choice of words, but the left co-opting the meaning of those words and then making their definition live “rent free” in our heads.==

    If the pope’s obvious political messages are being misrepresented or misunderstood or misused for others’ political purposes then I wish he would clarify in which ways he believes his words are being misunderstood or misrepresented or co-opted by them or by the media. Absent that, how do we know what is being spinned and played against his meaning, or why he said what he said in the first place? I agree with JVW’s statement way up thread that “Pope Francis needs to try a whole lot harder to separate catholic theology from banal platitudes if he wants to have anything approaching the credibility of his predecessors.”

    elissa (fa798c)

  113. Greetings:

    I grew up in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s in an Irish Catholic family that provided me with 13 years of Catholic education (with no do-overs). My father had grown up in the very southwest of ireland in the first quarter of that century and was a seriously practicing Catholic meaning Mass and Communion every Sunday without fail. But I always sensed he was still carrying an inner conflict as regards the Church’s involvement with the British colonial government, a kind of residual James Joyce effect as I would later figure out.

    My father was involved in our parish’s men’s group known as the Holy Name Society. Once a month they would have their 8 o’clock Sunday Mass followed by a breakfast meeting for which my father usually helped in the setting up. One Sunday morning, I got to tag along with him for some forgotten reason and ended up one of my favorite religious lessons. It seems that my father fell into some kind of disagreement with our parish’s assistant pastor which he concluded, in his inimitable way by explaining to the priest that “just because you’ve got your collar turn around backwards, don’t think I won’t straighten it out for you.”

    Later, on our way home, he felt the need to impart two bits of his wit and wisdom. The first was don’t let the priests get between you and God. The second was your mother needn’t be troubled with any of this.

    11B40 (0f96be)

  114. Elissa -‘it is being spun when they ignore what he said about abortion, and how he tied it to climate change. It seemed nonsensical to me, but they conveniently cut that part of his words out of the discussion.

    JD (3b5483)

  115. Aside from the fact that Pope Francis’s mother dresses him funny, he’s got some crust chastising Protestants as “not Christian”. My Huguenot ancestors decided some 400 years ago that they had had just about enough of taking crapola from the Pope. He can do his thing with his Catholic flock–but as a Protestant I say to Francis–“sod off swampy”.

    Comanche Voter (1d5c8b)

  116. Regarding the Papacy and WWII, you might want to peruse this book [link via Patterico’s Amazon widget] although it focuses on Pius XI ( who comes off as a somewhat tragic but sympathetic figure) and the prewar years. If the book accurately represents events, then Mussolini had more integrity and moral fiber than most of the Curia including the future Pius XII. According to this book the Church bureaucrats were interested in almost nothing beyond expanding and consolidating the power of the Church, especially in Italy and were quite willing to ignore what the Nazis and Fascists were doing to achieve that goal.

    kishnevi (294553)

  117. elissa (fa798c) — 6/23/2015 @ 8:34 pm

    I too agree with JVW’s assessment. But it isn’t the Pope’s job to correct the MFM’s misrepresentations. If it was even a tiny part of his job, he would end up doing nothing else. At some point the reader/listener is going to have to make up their own mind. I stopped listening to all secular reports on the Pope long ago. I read his words and make up my own mind. Anyone who has read the encyclical for themselves and makes up their own mind has my respect regardless of their takeaway.

    DRJ (e80d46) — 6/23/2015 @ 8:23 pm

    That is correct. When the left uses that phrase is it to further their agenda of acquiring more temporal power. When Francis uses it, it is to shepherd the faithful through a fog of uncertainty.

    felipe (56556d)

  118. What does it say to you, felipe?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  119. ==But it isn’t the Pope’s job to correct the MFM’s misrepresentations….. At some point the reader/listener is going to have to make up their own mind. I stopped listening to all secular reports on the Pope long ago. I read his words and make up my own mind. ==

    Perhaps you think a majority of the world’s billion plus Roman Catholics will read the entire lengthy encyclical, analyze it critically, think about its applications, and “make up their own mind”. I’m afraid I do not share this belief.

    elissa (fa798c)

  120. elissa (fa798c) — 6/23/2015 @ 9:40 pm

    I refer to the commenters at this site. There is no reason to suppose only Catholics would want to read Laudato Si. I should have made that clear.

    kishnevi (294553) — 6/23/2015 @ 9:09 pm

    From National Book Award finalist David I. Kertzer comes the gripping story of Pope Pius XI’s secret relations with Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. This groundbreaking work, based on seven years of research in the Vatican and Fascist archives, including reports from Mussolini’s spies inside the highest levels of the Church, will forever change our understanding of the Vatican’s role in the rise of Fascism in Europe.

    Sounds more like a novel than a history book. Perhaps we should listen to someone who was there?

    felipe (56556d)

  121. The first was don’t let the priests get between you and God.

    That’s a strong attitude among Greek men, too.

    Priests! About a month ago, at an old Catholic church in Oak Park, I heard the old Catholic priest say the Lord’s Prayer as “Our God who art in Heaven”. That’s not canonical; that’s his whimsy and it’s Oak Park.

    nk (dbc370)

  122. What does it say to you, felipe?
    DRJ (e80d46) — 6/23/2015 @ 9:22 pm

    I know where Francis is coming from: a genuine concern for the poor. He is about the salvation of souls and the shepherding of a colossal group no less prone to disagreement and no less obstinate than the disciples were. He writes in a way that can be easily misunderstood if you read with a secular mind. In his attempt to be accessible to more readers, he uses phrases that have unintended meanings.

    Francis means to guide the reader in navigating this secular world, particularly with respect to our use of this planet, so that, while we are in this world, we will not be of this world. When he speaks of evil, he means the evil in our hearts made manifest through action.

    I find nothing new in this document as touching faith and morals. But his approach to dealing with world issues is novel in that he expects the reader to have experienced the same touchstones he has. Because of this, I will need to trust him when my understanding of spiritual matters differs from his.

    felipe (56556d)

  123. nk (dbc370) — 6/23/2015 @ 10:01 pm

    Yes, I myself have witnessed such abuses when attending Mass in far flung places. These Priests know better, but are obstinate in their error.

    felipe (56556d)

  124. .

    the Papal Swiss Guard aren’t carrying slingshots to protect the Pontiff

    OH, IT GETS BETTER…

    I have not yet seen any confirmation from a reliable source, so I take it with a grain of salt, but according to one source:
    The Pietro Beretta Arms Factory, Ltd is one of the larger arms factories in the world…. and guess who is one of the major shareholders?

    Yyyyup. The Vatican Bank.

    Again, grain of salt, but highly amusing if true.

    Pope Goestheweasel is his new name…

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  125. Beretta is privately owned, IGB. By fathers and sons (and one son-in-law) named Beretta since the 1500s.

    nk (dbc370)

  126. Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 6/23/2015 @ 9:31 pm

    LOL! That is funny, thanks, Col.

    felipe (56556d)

  127. Priests! About a month ago, at an old Catholic church in Oak Park, I heard the old Catholic priest say the Lord’s Prayer as “Our God who art in Heaven”. That’s not canonical; that’s his whimsy and it’s Oak Park.

    Oh, so now we know where Cardinal George parked Michael Pfleger.

    JVW (8278a3)

  128. Pfleger is still at St. Sabina. Oak Park is a different kind of liberal. Mark’s favorite phrase would suit them to a tee.

    nk (dbc370)

  129. Other than boehner the pope could be the biggest white a-hole known to man.
    Obama has the black a-hole title to himself.

    mg (31009b)

  130. obama and his democrat congress are going to try and take your guns.

    mg (31009b)

  131. This is the kind of Pope that makes we consider conversion to Judaism.

    ErisGuy (76f8a7)

  132. felipe,

    I think you and Elizabeth are making a mistake by ignoring Pope Francis’ words. He explicitly cites former Popes and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew – the Green Patriarch, who believes man sins by harming the Earth just as he sins when he harms other men.

    That is a dramatic expansion of the notion of sin, but the language of this Encyclical makes it clear Francis agrees. Look at how often he talks about evil and the Earth, the environment, fossil fuels and the like. We know he thinks weapon manufacturers are not acting in a Christian manner. Can coal miners be far behind?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  133. I also agree context is important. Francis has an abiding devotion to caring for the poor, so it’s doubly surprising to me that his first two Encyclicals are “On Faith” and “On Care for our Common Home.” The poor may have been his concern in Argentina, but Faith and the Earth are his concerns now.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  134. I was at a club meeting yesterday and was amazed. Four big leftists ( two former Catholics and two Jews) were just touting how wonderful the Pope is because of his global warming statements. These are four men who never had a kind word for any Pope, or for that matter any person of faith since I’ve known them. Suddenly, leftists and crony communists love the Pope. Suddenly, four atheists think the Pope is a broad and forward thinker. I determined that as usual, all one needs do to gain the admiration of a stinkin’ communist is….become one.

    So regardless of how any of you guys argue for what the Pope said or meant, when I see folks I know for a fact to be lousy pinko’s glorifying someone I know that someone is dead wrong.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  135. I am Catholic.

    This Pope embarrasses me.

    He is a Leftist.

    Which means he has no ability to think rationally.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  136. You may wonder why I care about this, felipe, since I’m not a Catholic. Francis’ words may move the World’s Catholics to embrace climate change as a spiritual imperative, just as Obama’s words altered the landscape on racial issues. Americans naively believed Obama’s honeyed promises of racial healing. I fear the World’s Catholics may naively follow the Pope to achieve spiritual healing.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  137. And his WWII comments are …… breathless in its hypocrisy.

    Boy if anyone sowed the intellectual field and laid the tracks ….. it was the Church.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  138. #137, Not if it means no electricity. Give them credit for being a little more enlightened.

    Only people who go for this crap are those who think “THE OTHER GUY” is the one who will do without.

    Minute they are confronted with “no, you go live in a cave” — they forget all about it.

    Rodney King's Spirit (b31520)

  139. crunchy munchy fishsticks and butterscotch puddin and dad would always have his gun handy

    just in case

    mom just, she just absolutely hated that place

    we went there cause of grandma liked it

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  140. I am right there with you, DRJ. I do not consider the pontiff’s recent words to be benign. And I think they are intended to reach and instruct more than just his own worldwide flock.

    elissa (3c18c0)

  141. this pope has his own agenda elissa

    he done gone rogue like a tundra tart and this

    this will end badly

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  142. I believe the College of Cardinals chose poorly this last time around.

    Loren (1e34f2)

  143. The Pope’s speech in which he condemned weapons manufacturers can be found here:
    http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/it/speeches/2015/june/documents/papa-francesco_20150621_torino-giovani.html

    Google Translate of the relevant section:

    Some times I have said that we are living the Third World War, but in pieces. A parts: in Europe there is war, there is war in Africa, the Middle East there is war, in other countries there is the war … But I can have confidence in such a life? Can I trust of world leaders? I, when I go to vote for a candidate, I can trust that my country will not lead to war? If you trust only men, you lost! Makes me think of one thing: people, executives, entrepreneurs who call themselves Christians, and manufacturing weapons! This gives a little ‘mistrust themselves Christians! “No, no, Father, I do not fabbrico, no, no … Only I have my savings, my investments in weapons factories.” Ah! And why? “Why the interest is a bit ‘higher …”. And the double-sided coin is current today: say one thing and do another. The hypocrisy … But let’s see what has happened in the last century: in ’14, ’15, in ’15 properly. There was the great tragedy of Armenia. Many have died. I do not know the figure more than a million certainly. But where were the great powers of that time? They looked the other way. Why? Because they were concerned the war: their war! And those who die, are people, human beings of second class. Then, in the thirties-forties, the tragedy of the Holocaust. The great powers had photographs of the railway lines carrying trains to the concentration camps, such as Auschwitz, to kill the Jews, and also Christians, including the Roma, including homosexuals, to kill them there. But tell me, why not have bombed that? The interest! And a little ‘later, almost simultaneously, there were concentration camps in Russia: Stalin … How many Christians have suffered, have been killed! The great powers were divided Europe like a cake. Many years had to pass before you get to a “certain” freedom. There is hypocrisy to speak of peace and manufacture weapons, and even sell weapons to this that is at war with that, and what is at war with this!

    These are not words to inspire confidence in the speaker.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  144. “Scratch a South American Jesuit priest, and a Marxist bleeds.”

    Marxists want the “little people” riled up and ready for rebellion, but don’t want them to be armed. Marxists need helpless sheep, who will be happy when The Strong Leader shows up to “save” them (they are told they’re being “liberated from their chains” — but somehow it always winds up that they get more of the same old tyranny and oppression. Hmm. Go figure.)

    Betcha 10 bucks that Father Bergoglio has some connection to the proponents of One-World-Governance.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (eafea7)

  145. This is a very sad moment, because it indicates that this Pope is a sucker for popular generalities that are false.

    This one is refutable several different ways.

    First, bombing a rail line was not easy. A rail line is heavy pieces of steel, a few centimeters high, spiked down to heavy timbers embedded in packed-down gravel and stone. Only a direct hit can damage it. It’s a few meters across. The bombers were 6,000 to 9,000 meters up. Imagine trying to hit a strip of masking tape from the top of a 60-story building – while moving hundreds of miles an hour.

    Second, most of the Nazi murders were in 1941-1943, when the Allied bomber force was still relatively weak. 8th AF’s very first bomber mission against Europe was not till August 1942. RAF Bomber Command started earlier, of course, but nearly all Bomber Command attacks were night raids against large targets, such as factory complexes or entire cities. And getting within a kilometer of the target was considered good work.

    Third, all the extermination camps were off to the east. Auschwitz was in the eastern end of Germany; the others even further east. This would be extreme range for the bombers, with reduced bomb loads and no possible fighter escort. The bombers would be slaughtered for no effect.

    Fourth (and most important), even if the Allies had bombed out all the death camps and associated rail lines, the Nazis could still slaughter their victims with guns, bayonets, or bludgeons. The way to stop the Nazi killings was to destroy the Nazis as fast as possible, which meant bombing German arms factories, railroad yards, oil plants, and troops in the field. Trying to shut down the Nazi murders by aerial bombing would have been a quixotic distraction.

    The Pope is sadly ignorant of these facts. His regurgitation of the myth instead is an ominous precedent.

    Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd)

  146. Hi Rich. Your insights are always welcome.

    Regarding the Armenian Genocide: The Pope claimed that “interest” was the reason the Western powers did not intervene. There is, I am sure, absolutely no evidence of this. Rather, it was a combination of the fear of war with its casualties, risk of defeat, and the possibility of escalation into a regional or continental war.

    Regarding the “hypocrisy” of arms manufacturers and investors, Pope Francis shows no awareness that people might regard the manufacture and possession of arms as moral acts, because these weapons allow people to defend their freedom and their property.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  147. tundra tart – laughing

    mg (31009b)

  148. “the Green Patriarch, who believes man sins by harming the Earth just as he sins when he harms other men.”

    DRJ, you know I respect you, it seems to me you are convinced that this is a dramatic expansion of the concept of sin because you are taking these words at face value.

    “If I harm another that is sin”

    This sounds so simple, even true, but it is incorrect to take at face value.

    2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    So it is possible to kill another without sinning. Therefore it is possible to harm the earth without sinning. We get into trouble when we substitute our understanding of the secular usage of words for the our knowledge of the spiritual usage of words.

    When I read those words, it was not necessary for me to retrieve my knowledge of what the Church teaches on sin because I had already shifted my thinking to spiritual mode, because I knew I was reading an encyclical. There is a deeper meaning to be had if you look past the face value of the words.

    In a sense, those who object to what is being said in Laudato Si are trapped in a Monty Python skit of the mind. In the movie Life of Brian, We see Jesus in a close-up delivering the well-known Sermon On The Mount. The camera pulls slowly away until we are at the extreme periphery where onlookers are straining to make out the words. comedy ensues when erroneous words are substituted, such as, “Blessed are the cheese-makers.” The faithful find this funny because they have experienced this common misunderstanding, but the faithless find this funny for an altogether different reason: it reinforces their view of the faithful as naive simpletons who (they think) only blindly believe.

    The comedy I am witnessing in the various reactions to Laudato Si are not the least bit funny as it reveals a similar duality of thought: faithfulness and faithlessness. Before you misinterpret what I have said, let make clear that faithfulness and faithlessness are ephemeral states of mind in the living. One can be called “faithful”, yet experience a moment of “faithlessness.” Such as Peter did when he drew the sword on Mount Olive. Likewise one can think themselves as having no faith, yet experience a moment of intense faithfulness -such as in moments of great trial.

    One of the great challenges all Christians are constantly struggling with, is to be in a state of faithfulness. One can be saintly, however fleetingly, but not a saint, while living – so pervasive is temptation.

    You are mistaken when you say that Elizabeth and I are ignoring the Pope’s words: no, we understand their spiritual meaning. It is you who ignore the spiritual meaning in the words.

    . We know he thinks weapon manufacturers are not acting in a Christian manner. Can coal miners be far behind?

    Let me just say that this is not a helpful statement other than to give me an opportunity to say “so what, What if he does?” The Pope is perfectly free to have his opinion. I am perfectly fine with that particular opinion because I fail to act in a Christian manner from time to time. Is it so far fetched to expect the same from other Christians?

    I am always thankful when anyone pays attention to the Pope. He is not just for Catholics alone anymore than freedom is for the free alone. He is, in a sense, your pope, too. This is why respect your feelings on the matter – because they matter.

    Francis’ words may move the World’s Catholics to embrace climate change as a spiritual imperative, just as Obama’s words altered the landscape on racial issues. Americans naively believed Obama’s honeyed promises of racial healing. I fear the World’s Catholics may naively follow the Pope to achieve spiritual healing.

    Or they may not! I think it is you who are being naive. No Catholic is going to embrace climate change, naively seeking spiritual healing, that hasn’t already bought into it – for much less noble reasons I will add! Further, no Catholic will do so at the Pope’s urging. Remember Humanae Vitae? This encyclical reminded the faithful that it is never licit to use contraceptives which all Catholics understand as a very serious issue. Did Stubborn Catholics stop this practice? Hell no! Remember, Catholics are obstinate sinners! So what makes you believe that Laudato Si will have any more impact? I can’t think of any that I can’t crush.

    I think the best way to assuage any misplaced concern in “Gaia Catholics” running amok, is that climate change is way down our list. We have more immediate concerns like the religious liberties
    that are being taken from all Christians.

    felipe (56556d)

  149. So regardless of how any of you guys argue for what the Pope said or meant, when I see folks I know for a fact to be lousy pinko’s glorifying someone I know that someone is dead wrong.
    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27) — 6/24/2015 @ 6:23 am

    First, let me say that I respect that you do stick to what you know is true. So do I.

    Once again, I agree, Hoagie. But you will be surprised at who is wrong. Your four leftist are wrong. Especially if they think they have co-opted the Pope in their agenda.

    I sense that you have a great understanding for the passage “You will know them by their fruits.” You also correctly said that time would tell if the Pope was heading the Church in the right direction. I’ll give you a hint; the church of “climate changers” will be gone but the Catholic Church will still be here.

    felipe (56556d)

  150. “We have more immediate concerns like the religious liberties that are being taken from all Christians.”

    Saw a t-shirt yesterday: a small crucifix with the caption “outlawed in 96 countries”.

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  151. he’s embracing the Castro Brother, that mad scientist Schellnhuber, by that proverb, which was is he turning,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  152. correction: “Illegal in 51 countries”
    http://www.persecutionblog.com/2007/10/this-shirt-is-i.html

    pst314 (ae6bd1)

  153. If only I had the eloquence of Yuval Levin

    But I don’t think the fundamental purpose of the encyclical is to tell Catholics they should care about environmentalism, even if the Pope would surely like them to do so. I think its purpose is to tell environmentalists they should care about their souls.

    felipe (56556d)

  154. but manbearpig is a scam artist, selling indulgences, (tax credits) at a hefty markup

    narciso (ee1f88)

  155. No wonder so many US catholics haven’t felt at home in the catholic church for a long time. There was the 1982 Pastoral Letter of US Bishops that undermined the US nuclear deterrent. Then the abuse scandals, the cover ups, and the following monetary loss to so many catholic schools and hospitals. Now these lectures from a man drenched in latin American socialism. How embarrassing.

    Galling as well, that there should be a question–any question–about the efforts of the allies in WWII. One uncle was a fighter pilot in WWII; another was wounded three times in Europe. They were trying to end the war as fast as they could. Diverting precious resources to bombing easily repairable rail lines instead of oil refineries and manufacturing plants would have been foolhardiness of the first order.

    Harcourt Fenton Mudd (5e0a82)

  156. No, you are quite wrong. Mr. Mudd. Christians haven’t felt “at home” in the Church since its founding by Jesus. There was a great crisis in the Church on its “birthday” (Pentecost) when onlookers accused the Apostles of being drunk in broad daylight. Little has changed in all that time.

    felipe (56556d)

  157. Yes, media deliberately misreads much of what the Pope says and writes, and yes, any post about him draws out the worst sort of anti-Catholic bigotry and lies, but it is becoming impossible to defend this guy now. He’s either nuts, or he is working for the other team (and that ain’t the Blue Devils, Chomsky).

    Estragon (ada867)

  158. well the early apostles probably thought Saul crazy, ‘but that’s not important right now’
    the fact that he is being advised by the German version of Holdren is more relevant, probably since Vatican 11, those more devout have felt at odds, the liberation theology crowd, curran’s fundamental option,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  159. A mere three years later, in a precipitous departure from the usual academic career path, Schellnhuber founded (and became the director of) the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

    Dang! why didn’t I think of that, I’d be rolling in dough.

    felipe (56556d)

  160. BTW, concentration camp rail lines weren’t bombed because there weren’t unlimited bombers. It was prioritized to end the war ASAP, so military production and transport were primary targets. Besides, bombing the lines would not have saved anyone, they would have been left to die in the locked cars.

    Estragon (ada867)

  161. Estragon (ada867) — 6/24/2015 @ 2:39 pm

    The Pope playing for anybody’s team, but God’s? Only in the movies and the books they are based on.

    ” but it is becoming impossible to defend this guy now”

    The same can be said about Jesus, so Francis is in good company. Jesus doesn’t need anyone to defend Him, and in a sense, neither does Pope Francis. There is nothing wrong with silence; Jesus was silent in Herod’s court.

    felipe (56556d)

  162. I will now practice being silent on this subject. (great applause from the gallery)

    felipe (56556d)

  163. is he really conveying Jesus’s message, where is the scriptural support for much of this,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  164. On the very different subject of scriptural proof: Show me where in Scripture it lists the books of the Bible.

    felipe (56556d)

  165. That was vague of me. I should have said “the books of the NT.”

    felipe (56556d)

  166. so which ones have been left out of the canon, in your view,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  167. You are no troll, sir but perhaps you are just changing the subject until something sticks: it seems to work for trolls.

    felipe (56556d)

  168. Dana asked how churches construed the Pope’s words. According to the Arizona Republic, most Catholic churches and parishioners are undecided, but this is what one Phoenix priest thinks:

    The pope’s intention, [the Rev. Michael] Weldon [of Saint Mary’s Basilica in Phoenix] said, is to “open a dialogue” about the environment and the extent to which human intervention has caused global warming.

    “The whole document is a call to tend to the ache of the Earth,” Weldon said in an interview. “The pope directly links the demise of the planet to human intervention and calls us to help the Earth and the poor, who suffer most from the conditions.”

    The pope’s call to action comes as the world nears a critical time for international climate change negotiations that start late this year in Paris.

    Francis said he hoped his paper would prompt a change of heart among both ordinary people in their daily lives and decision-makers at the U.N. climate meetings.

    The article says the Pope will be speaking to Congress in September. Maybe he will clarify this issue for everyone.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  169. This article combines felipe’s point and mine, arguing that Pope Francis is both an advocate for the poor and sees climate change as a threat. To me, it suggests the Pope is taking the side of developing countries over developed countries, and using man-made climate change and progressive environmentalism as his vehicle.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  170. Apparently, the Pope’s words did not quite resonate with a lot of priests and parishioners, mostly because they are not keyed in to the climate change movement:

    But few priests or bishops — other than in parts of Latin America — used their own pulpits on Sunday to pass on the pope’s message, according to parish visits, interviews with Catholic leaders, and reports from Catholics after Mass.

    Despite the urgent call to action in Francis’ document and the international attention it received, it will take some time to know whether Catholic clergy are familiar or comfortable enough with its themes to preach them to the faithful.

    “There has not been that much awareness among parish priests of climate change,” said the Rev. Aris Sison, a spokesman for the Diocese of Cubao in Manila, the Philippines capital. “The Holy Father has now made a clear connection between the environment and morality. He has given us a whole new way of thinking about the environment.”


    Also, in the Pope’s own hometown of Buenos Aires, the encyclical went unmentioned during masses held the following day.

    Dana (86e864)

  171. “The Holy Father has now made a clear connection between the environment and morality.”

    Dana (86e864)

  172. China will continue to be a large fly in the pope’s environment and morality ointment.

    elissa (3c18c0)

  173. Given his background, I can see Pope Francis using clamate change as a device to argue richer (developed) countries must give to poorer (developing) countries. He might not even care about climate change, but he cares a great deal about the poor and this could be useful to his efforts.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  174. probably but the solutions proferred by the likes of Schellnhuber, make everyone poorer,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  175. Radio Vatican interviewed an Father Augusto Zampini, an Argentinian Jesuit priest and moral theologian who knew and worked with Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in Buenos Aires. Here is part of the interview:

    Fight for vested interests

    Asked about the Pope’s stated desire to release his encyclical in plenty of time before a key UN summit on climate change in Paris, Father Zampini said this was a “deliberate” move because Pope Francis wants “to have a say” and also include “the voice of the voiceless” in these crucial negotiations that will help decide the future of our planet. He conceded, however, that some people in powerful positions won’t want to accept the Pope’s appeal for a constructive dialogue on the issue of climate change and instead will “fight for their own vested interests.”

    An ecological conversion

    When it comes to the encyclical’s lasting impact, Father Zampini believed this “inspiring document” will have a two-fold impact: both on the upcoming UN negotiations on climate change and also within the Church where he hopes it will trigger a “transformation… and the beginning of an ecological conversion within Catholic communities worldwide.”

    Transformational? Hope and Change!

    DRJ (e80d46)

  176. Only biuzzword missing is “comprehensive”.

    elissa (3c18c0)

  177. Here’s a question. When was the last time that anything a Pope said had significant, or even any, effect on anybody who didn’t want to go along? The Thirty Years War?

    nk (dbc370)

  178. I think Pope John Paul II was influential on world affairs and on his parishes. Last year, it was reported that Pope Francis has already influenced 42% of American Catholics to increase their giving, along with anecdotal reports of increased parish interest after he became Pope.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  179. Hey Pope Fuc#face, how about arming your personal guards with Nerf guns and silly string? sure don’t want those Swiss dudes carrying EEEEEEVIL WEAPONS, EH??

    John Cunningham (9f3ba7)

  180. nobody likes a commie pope that’s for sure

    when the pope tries to say blah blah blah global warming

    all you can do is say shut your effing piehole you stupid commie

    i mean it zip it

    don’t make me get the rolled up newspaper

    happyfeet (831175)

  181. 154. If only I had the eloquence of Yuval Levin

    But I don’t think the fundamental purpose of the encyclical is to tell Catholics they should care about environmentalism, even if the Pope would surely like them to do so. I think its purpose is to tell environmentalists they should care about their souls.

    felipe (56556d) — 6/24/2015 @ 2:13 pm

    If only the Pope had Yuval Levin’s eloquence.

    One of the encyclical’s major problem is that it tries to cover too much ground. Even at 192 pages it’s too short to cover all the subjects it tries to cover. As someone upthread commented, the previous two Popes were serious intellectuals who had written serious papers before becoming Pope. Francis, to my knowledge, did not. In any case this encyclical shows a lack of intellectual rigor. So it is not quite coherent. The prior two Popes, if they were inclined to issue an encyclical like this (which I doubt) would have recognized the flaws of this document and tightened it up. They would have covered fewer topics, but developed each one more completely.

    They would have gotten their point across, whereas this Pope has fallen short of that mark.

    I don’t believe they would have written this because they would have recognized the logical inconsistencies.

    178. Radio Vatican interviewed an Father Augusto Zampini, an Argentinian Jesuit priest and moral theologian who knew and worked with Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio in Buenos Aires. Here is part of the interview:

    …He conceded, however, that some people in powerful positions won’t want to accept the Pope’s appeal for a constructive dialogue on the issue of climate change and instead will “fight for their own vested interests.”…

    DRJ (e80d46) — 6/24/2015 @ 4:00 pm

    That’s the way to promote “constructive dialogue,” eh? Start out by proclaiming anyone who doesn’t agree with the Pope’s prescriptions must be doing so out of bad intent. In this case, looking out for their “vested interests.” Which of course means their capitalist profits.

    But then that’s typical of the entire process that led to this encyclical. Differing points of view were locked out. What so many critics are looking out for are the logical chasms, which Pope Francis unfortunately fell into, rather than “vested interests.”

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  182. Constructive dialogue to a priest is:
    — Bless me, Father, for I have sinned ….
    — Say five Our Fathers and five Hail Marys and put $5.00 in the poorbox.
    — But I want to be a Knight of Columbus.
    — That’ll be $5,000.00.

    nk (dbc370)

  183. there’s category error in Levin’s, Pope Francis is really suggesting those who do not worship the skydragon, like the Abomination in the last episode of AD, are in danger of losing theirs,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  184. Greetings, happyfeet: ( @ happyfeet (831175) — 6/24/2015 @ 5:47 pm )

    You were somewhat vague about your rolled up newspaper. Our family preferred a broadsheet rolled along its spine and then folded in half which resulted in an 8-inch arm extension with an ersatz rock on its end. In conducting his training session, my father mentioned its efficacy in removing “scabs from truck during the Great Depression”.

    11B40 (6abb5c)

  185. 186. there’s category error in Levin’s, Pope Francis is really suggesting those who do not worship the skydragon, like the Abomination in the last episode of AD, are in danger of losing theirs,
    narciso (ee1f88) — 6/24/2015 @ 5:56 pm

    That’s what I meant about LAUDATO SI being incoherent as it tries to cover too much ground.

    Trying to figure out what he’s suggesting is like trying to figure out a Rorschach test.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  186. had he just left out the climate change, and considered how ‘we are our brother’s keepers’ re people in geographically sensitive regions, he would had more impact among those he was trying to reach.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  187. There is hypocrisy to speak of peace and manufacture weapons, and even sell weapons to this that is at war with that, and what is at war with this!
    Hey, if that means he wants to knock the French for selling arms to Saddam while supposedly holding an embargo, out with it. The idea of making and selling arms to both sides in a war for profit, if that is what he meant, is sort of obvious and a misleading straw man.
    Of course he may get quoted out of context and twisted to say what the left wants to be heard, and maybe it sounded better in Italian or Latin and could have had a better English translation.

    I sometimes think some things should be a lot easier to say. For example, if you want to use Romans 8 about the earth aching, stick with the plain truth, it has been aching since the fall and will continue to ache until Jesus’ return. Loving your neighbor like you love yourself looks more to me like not doing things to increase the price of tortillas than chasing after electricity producing windmills.

    If you want to talk about wars, there will be wars and rumors of wars until Jesus returns. If there is a just war justification, make it clear what would be a just war and what wouldn’t. If you want to make moral equivalence between the blitzkrieg and D-day, then out with it and quit the hem-hawing around.

    MD in Philly (522abd)

  188. 190. …I sometimes think some things should be a lot easier to say. For example, if you want to use Romans 8 about the earth aching, stick with the plain truth, it has been aching since the fall and will continue to ache until Jesus’ return. Loving your neighbor like you love yourself looks more to me like not doing things to increase the price of tortillas than chasing after electricity producing windmills.

    If you want to talk about wars, there will be wars and rumors of wars until Jesus returns. If there is a just war justification, make it clear what would be a just war and what wouldn’t. If you want to make moral equivalence between the blitzkrieg and D-day, then out with it and quit the hem-hawing around.

    MD in Philly (522abd) — 6/24/2015 @ 8:42 pm

    Unfortunately this Pope seems to have trouble with sticking to the plain truth, in the fullest meaning of both words.

    I’ve been trying to read LAUDATO SI, but it’s a tough slog. Certain things do leap out at me, though. In chapter two, THE GOSPEL OF CREATION, VII. THE GAZE OF JESUS, Francis writes about Jesus (and the Jews of his time) as if he were describing the Navi in John Cameron’s Pandora.

    This struck me as particularly bizarre.

    98. Jesus lived in full harmony with creation, and others were amazed: “What sort of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him?” (Mt 8:27)…

    (The paragraph then proceeds to discuss aspects of Jesus not really related to the first sentence. For instance the next sentence is about how He enjoyed eating and drinking, etc.)

    Nobody was amazed that Jesus “lived in full harmony with creation.” They were amazed at His ability to command nature, to bend nature to His will.

    Jesus Calms the Storm
    23Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him. 24Suddenly a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. 25The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Lord, save us! We’re going to drown!”

    26He replied, “You of little faith, why are you so afraid?” Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

    27The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!”

    Rebuking the winds and waves is living in harmony with creation?

    This is why reading this hot mess is so tough. It’s very much a document written by committee. All the parts don’t make a single coherent whole and there are a lot of square pegs hammered into round holes and vice versa. That Bible passage doesn’t say what they needed it to say so they twisted into submission to make it work.

    I really can’t see John Paul or Benedict producing this confused jumble.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  189. Beretta is privately owned, IGB. By fathers and sons (and one son-in-law) named Beretta since the 1500s.

    OK, perhaps “shareholder” is an incorrect term. They clearly have investors (one of the board members is also a bigwig in a bank). I see no reason to presume ownership and investment are inseparable.

    Not pushing it as true, but your comment does not preclude the Vatican from having investments in it.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  190. Never mind all that. Is he even the Pope in the eyes of God while Benedict is alive? Because, you know, Germany did win the World Cup over Argentina. That could have been a Sign.

    nk (dbc370)

  191. Serious question for Catholics: If the translation and reporting is at least somewhat accurate (and I realise that’s a big “if”), and the Pope says that calling oneself a Christian is inconsistent with doing X, whatever it is, isn’t that a teaching on faith or morals? Doesn’t it therefore carry significant (albeit not absolute) authority, and require Catholics to take it seriously and try to submit to it if they can?

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  192. pst314:

    Regarding the Armenian Genocide: The Pope claimed that “interest” was the reason the Western powers did not intervene.

    No, he didn’t. He said it was “Because they were concerned about the war: their war!”

    There is, I am sure, absolutely no evidence of this. Rather, it was a combination of the fear of war with its casualties, risk of defeat, and the possibility of escalation into a regional or continental war.

    Um, what? Do you have any idea when this happened, and in what context? What was going on at the time?

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  193. On the very different subject of scriptural proof: Show me where in Scripture it lists the books of the Bible.
    […]
    That was vague of me. I should have said “the books of the NT.”

    Isn’t that circular? How could the Bible (or the NT, or any similar canon) possibly list its own books? Even if the authors knew that what they were writing would be canon, the authors of all but the last one couldn’t have known about the subsequent ones, and even the last one’s author couldn’t have known that there wouldn’t be any more.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  194. What bothers me about the climate encyclical is not so much what it says as the fact that he refused to listen to the delegation of skeptical scientists who went to Rome to give him their perspective.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  195. Francis writes about Jesus (and the Jews of his time) as if he were describing the Navi .

    That sounded funny in this context, because “navi” is Hebrew for “prophet”, so at first glance I thought that’s what you meant.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  196. Mr. B40 I have a funny story but for later

    happyfeet (831175)

  197. Milhouse @ 197,

    The delegation of skeptical scientists had been approved to attend, however, upon arrival were told, surprisingly, that there was no longer room for them.

    I’m curious about who made the call. Was the Pope aware of this in advance, when was it decided, etc? All in all, coupled with the Pope’s declaration that climate change is a moral imperative, it adds to suspicion that he is pushing an agenda. And whether couched in Christianity or not, it just doesn’t look well.

    Dana (86e864)

  198. Correction: the scientists were told that if there were space available they would have a spot, however, their denied access came *after* other pro-climate change scientists and the Vatican heavies said they had no business being there. My copy/edit function has momentarily fizzled. Link here.

    Dana (86e864)

  199. 194. …Doesn’t it therefore carry significant (albeit not absolute) authority, and require Catholics to take it seriously and try to submit to it if they can?
    Milhouse (a0cc5c) — 6/25/2015 @ 11:03 am

    No, because Catholic catechism teaches that outside the realm of theology and doctrine, i.e. spiritual matters, the clergy have no special authority or expertise that the laity lacks.

    The Pope is certainly entitled to his own opinions on matters, but his ability to speak infallibly is limited by the bureaucracy of the church. In other words, the doctrine of Papal infallibility does not extend to allow the Pope to teach error.

    This bureaucracy would include the Archdiocese of the Military in the US, and in any other country as well where the church provides chaplains to the armed forces.

    http://www.milarch.org/site/c.dwJXKgOUJiIaG/b.6287817/k.290A/Archdiocese_for_the_Military_USA.htm

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  200. Steve, that’s precisely my point. When the Pope (or any bishop) says that some action is inconsistent with calling oneself a Christian, isn’t that by definition a teaching on “faith or morals”, i.e. precisely the area where the Church does claim a teaching authority?

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  201. I’ll settle with not being able to call myself Catholic

    steveg (fed1c9)

  202. 203. Steve, that’s precisely my point. When the Pope (or any bishop) says that some action is inconsistent with calling oneself a Christian, isn’t that by definition a teaching on “faith or morals”, i.e. precisely the area where the Church does claim a teaching authority?

    Milhouse (a0cc5c) — 6/25/2015 @ 5:56 pm

    Outside of what has been declared intrinsically evil, I don’t see how. Abortion, or any taking of innocent life, is intrinsically evil, for instance.

    But on the other hand (to try to remain on point in this instance) the Catholic Church has never been pacifist. This isn’t just true because of the Pope’s well armed Swiss guard.

    Jesus said to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. Paul appealed to Caesar when he was imprisoned. He asked for the protection of Roman soldiers. There are several occasions in the New Testament when Roman or auxiliary (possibly Jewish under Herod Agrippa) soldiers or centurions interact with Jesus or other disciples/heralds.

    At no point does he or any other New Testament figure tell them to stop being soldiers.

    Luke 3:

    The Mission of John the Baptist

    12 And some tax collectors also came to be baptized, and they said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” 13 And he said to them, “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to.” 14 Some soldiers were questioning him, saying, “And what about us, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages.

    It just isn’t the case that a Pope can come along and reverse the entire teaching of the church on a particular subject and the doctrine of Papal infallibility requires us to go along. The hierarchy of the church has its downsides, but there is an upside in this regard.

    I realize my explanation my not satisfy. All I can say is that outside of certain absolutes the Catholic Church can’t dictate my choices. My faith may form my conscience, and I must for example be concerned about the poor. But how I decide to best express my concern for the poor is up to my judgement. Not Pope Francis’.

    Steve57 (ec1eac)

  203. My question is about this concept of “teaching authority”. My understanding mostly comes from Wikipedia, whose information mostly comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I don’t really understand it that well. But as I understand it, short of infallibility, which only happens when a pope speaks ex cathedra on a matter of doctrine, there is also what’s called magisterium, or the authority to teach on matters of faith or morals, and when any bishop, let alone a pope, speaks on them, anyone under his jurisdiction must take it to heart, and try to conform their thinking to it, exercising religious submission, unless they truly find they can’t square it with their consciences. Is that a mistaken summary of the concept?

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)

  204. I thought he was just a Socialist loon … now it turns out he’s also a dumb sh*t …

    KaiserDerden (399734)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4405 secs.